X-Message-Number: 26901
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 07:26:56 -0400
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: one more for Yvan Bozzonetti

Hello everyone!

To Yvan Bozzonetti:

NO, I specifically do NOT accept that any sequential processor is 
equivalent to a system of parallel processors. This idea is in one
sense a forgivable fallacy, since most theory about computing ignores
the CRUCIAL issue of TIMING. Those who actually make large parallel
machines know very well that their parallel processors aren't at all
equivalent to any sequential processor, no matter how fast.

I do not know how I could explain this point more clearly. TIME 
should be put into even the earliest computing theory.

Yvan, your response also shows how the word "equivalent" and even
the word "equal" can take many meanings, and the choice of meaning
is very important. If we ignore TIME in our theories of computing,
then yes, parallel computers are "equivalent" to sequential computers.
Yes, and if we're doing biology, and look only at individual cells,
then we may decide that plants are "equivalent" to animals. Not
that such a decision is a good choice, but we're only talking 
definitions, aren't we?

I hope that this message makes my position on sequential versus
parallel computing clear. 

           Best wishes and long long life for all,

               Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26901